However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 2:10 on March 1, 2020, the Defendant: (a) 112, around the dwelling site of the Defendant in the Gunsan-si B apartment site No. 2; and (b) 112, she was called out after receiving a report that she she was under the control of the Defendant’s wife; (c) she was under the control of the Defendant’s wife, and she was under the control of the Defendant’s wife, and she was under the control of the Defendant’s wife; (d) she was under the control of the Defendant’s wife; (d) she was under the control of the Defendant’s wife; (e) she was under the control of the Defendant’s wife; (e) she was under the control of the Defendant’s wife; (e) she was under the control of the Defendant’s wife; and (e) she was under the control of the Defendant

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. G documents;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to 112 reported case handling lists, on-site photographs, photographs of damaged police officers, and photographs to capture images;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Act on Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Act on Suspension of Execution is considerably poor in nature of a crime

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;